Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty.

BACKGROUND: In the highly competitive environment of academic medicine, junior faculty investigators face high attrition rates due to challenges in finding effective mentorship, securing grant funding, and obtaining resources to support their career development and research productivity. The purpose of this study was to describe the centralized, cost-sharing design of the Independent Investigator Incubator (I3) program as a novel approach to junior faculty mentoring and to evaluate quantitative outcomes for program improvement. METHODS: In September 2014, the I3 pilot program, a comprehensive mentorship program targeting junior faculty pursuing research careers, was launched. Participants included junior faculty during the crucial first three years of their research careers or during their transition from career development awards to more independent research. Following initial screening, the I3 mentees were paired with a senior faculty "super-mentor" with expertise in either basic science or clinical research. Mentees were provided with robust traditional one-on-one mentoring, targeted feedback from a super-mentor review committee, as well as biostatistician and grant writing support. To assess the effectiveness of the I3 program, we tracked outcome measures via baseline and 12-month mentee surveys. Data collected assessed program diversity, mentee self-assessments, evaluation of the mentoring relationship, scholarship and productivity metrics. Raw data were analyzed using a paired t-test in Excel (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Results of the baseline mentee self-assessment survey found that the I3 mentees indicated common "perceive deficits" including navigating the organizational and institutional culture, clear direction in achieving promotion and tenure, among others. When baseline mentee survey responses were compared to 12-month responses, we identified strong "perceived growth" in categories, such as Research and Interpersonal Skills and Career Development Skills. Further, productivity metrics at 12-months revealed that roughly 80% of I3 mentees successfully published a manuscript(s). The I3 program has helped generate roughly $12.1 million dollars in investigator-initiated funding after two years in the program. CONCLUSION: The I3 program allows for shared costs between institutions and increased availability of successful subject matter experts. Study results imply that the I3 mentoring program provides transformative mentorship for junior faculty. Using our findings, we developed courses and an annual "snapshot" of mentee performance for mentors.

High and low-risk specialties experience with the U.S. medical malpractice system.

BACKGROUND: "High-liability risk specialties" tend to be the focus of medical malpractice system research and debate, but concerns and fears are not limited to this group. The objective of this study was to examine whether "high-liability risk" medical specialties have a different experience with the malpractice system than "low-liability risk" specialties. METHODS: We reviewed claims data from the Physician Insurers Association of America's Data Sharing Project between January 1985 and December 2008. We used linear regression, controlling for year, to determine how liability risk affected outcomes of interest. RESULTS: In high-liability risk specialties, 33% of claims result in indemnity payments compared to 28% for low-liability risk specialties (p < 0.001). The average indemnity payment for high-liability risk specialties was $315,314 compared to $267,146 for low-liability risk specialties (p = 0.25). Although only a small percentage of claims go to trial, low-liability risk specialties have significantly more claims that are ultimately dropped, withdrawn or dismissed, while high-liability risk specialties have significantly more claims that result in plaintiff settlement (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice risk exists for all specialties. Variability in indemnity costs are found in both high- and low-liability risk specialties. Differences in the reasons for which claims are initiated for high- and low-liability risk specialties likely necessitate different risk management solutions.

The impact of defense expenses in medical malpractice claims.

The objective of this study was to take a closer look at defense-related expenses for medical malpractice cases over time. We conducted a retrospective review of medical malpractice claims reported to the Physician Insurers Association of America's Data Sharing Project with a closing date between January 1, 1985 and December 31, 2008. On average a medical malpractice claim costs more than $27,000 to defend. Claims that go to trial are much more costly to defend than are those that are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed. However, since the overwhelming majority of claims are dropped, withdrawn, or dismissed, the total amount spent to defend them surpasses that spent on claims that go to trial. Defense attorney expenses account for the majority of defense-related expenses (74%), while expert witness expenses and other expenses split the remaining 26%. A strong association was also found between the average indemnity payment and the amount it costs to defend individual claims by specialty. Our study found that defense-related expenses for medical malpractice claims are not an insignificant cost. As state and federal governments debate how to repair the malpractice system, addressing the high cost of defending claims should not be ignored.

Malpractice claims involving pediatricians: epidemiology and etiology.

OBJECTIVE: Our goals were to examine malpractice claims data that are specific to the specialty of pediatrics and to provide a better understanding of the effect that malpractice has on this specialty. METHODS: The Physician Insurers Association of America is a trade association of medical malpractice insurance companies. The data contained in its data-sharing project represent approximately 25% of the medical malpractice claims in the United States at a given time. Although this database is not universally comprehensive, it does contain information not available in the National Practitioner Data Bank, such as information on claims that are not ultimately paid and specialty of the defendant. We asked the Physician Insurers Association of America to perform a query of its data-sharing project database to find malpractice claims reported between January 1, 1985, and December 31, 2005, in which the defendant's medical specialty was coded as pediatrics. Comparison data were collected for 27 other specialties recorded in the database. RESULTS: During a 20-year period (1985-2005), there were 214,226 closed claims reported to the Physician Insurers Association of America data-sharing project. Pediatricians account for 2.97% of these claims, making it 10th among the 28 specialties in terms of the number of closed claims. Pediatrics ranks 16th in terms of indemnity payment rate (28.13%), with dentistry ranked highest at 43.35%, followed by obstetrics and gynecology at 35.50%. Indemnity payment refers to settlements or awards made directly to plaintiffs as a result of claim-resolution process. Data are presented on changes over time, claim-adjudication status, expenses on claims, the causes of claims, and injuries sustained. CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice is a serious issue. Some will read the results of this analysis and draw comfort; others will view the same data with alarm and surprise. Regardless of how one interprets these findings, they are important in truly informing the debate with generalizable facts.